Determination of recent tectonic deformations along the Tuz Gölü Fault Zone in Central Anatolia (Turkey) with GNSS observations

Chia sẻ: Tần Mộc Phong | Ngày: | Loại File: PDF | Số trang:14

Thêm vào BST

Báo xấu

22
lượt xem 1
download

Download Vui lòng tải xuống để xem tài liệu đầy đủ

The morphotectonic features of the TGFZ and the distribution of the epicenters of earthquakes over magnitude 5.0 show that this fault zone remains active today. In this study, the deformation of the TGFZ is determined with high sensitivity using geodetic measurements. To obtain accurate information about the deformation of the TGFZ, 24 GNSS sites and two continuously operating reference stations were constructed in the southern part of the TGFZ. Between 2018 and 2020, Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) measurements were made on this network. The data of the Turkish National Fundamental GPS Network (TNFGN) and the continuously operating reference stations-Turkey (CORS-TR) sites around the study area were also included in the study, and GNSS measurements were evaluated with the GAMIT/GLOBK software, and velocity fields of the region were determined.

Chủ đề:

Bình luận(0) Đăng nhập để gửi bình luận!

Lưu

Nội dung Text: Determination of recent tectonic deformations along the Tuz Gölü Fault Zone in Central Anatolia (Turkey) with GNSS observations

Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences Turkish J Earth Sci (2022) 31: 20-33 http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/earth/ © TÜBİTAK Research Article doi:10.3906/yer-2108-10 Determination of recent tectonic deformations along the Tuz Gölü Fault Zone in Central Anatolia (Turkey) with GNSS observations 1, 2 3,4 5 1 Cemil GEZGİN *, Semih EKERCİN , İbrahim TİRYAKİOĞLU , Bahadır AKTUĞ , Hediye ERDOĞAN , 1 6 1 7 Esra GÜRBÜZ , Osman ORHAN , Süleyman Sefa BİLGİLİOĞLU , Ahmet Tarık TORUN , 1 1 8 9 Halil İbrahim GÜNDÜZ , Osman OKTAR , Cezmi TÜRKMEN , Efdal KAYA 1 Department of Geomatics, Aksaray University, Aksaray, Turkey 2 Department of Geomatics Engineering, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey 3 Department of Geomatics Engineering, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey 4 Earthquake Implementation and Research Center of Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey 5 Department of Geophysical Engineering, Ankara University, Gölbaşı, Ankara, Turkey 6 Department of Geomatics Engineering, Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey 7 Department of Geography, Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen University, Ağrı, Turkey 8 Aksaray Provincial Directorate of Disaster and Emergency, Aksaray, Turkey 9 İskenderun Vocational School, İskenderun Technical University, Hatay, Turkey Received: 22.08.2021 Accepted/Published Online: 30.11.2021 Final Version: 28.01.2022 Abstract: The Tuz Gölü Fault Zone (TGFZ) is one of the most important active tectonic structures of Central Anatolia. The morphotectonic features of the TGFZ and the distribution of the epicenters of earthquakes over magnitude 5.0 show that this fault zone remains active today. In this study, the deformation of the TGFZ is determined with high sensitivity using geodetic measurements. To obtain accurate information about the deformation of the TGFZ, 24 GNSS sites and two continuously operating reference stations were constructed in the southern part of the TGFZ. Between 2018 and 2020, Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) measurements were made on this network. The data of the Turkish National Fundamental GPS Network (TNFGN) and the continuously operating reference stations-Turkey (CORS-TR) sites around the study area were also included in the study, and GNSS measurements were evaluated with the GAMIT/GLOBK software, and velocity fields of the region were determined. In addition, block modeling of the study area was calculated using the GeodSuit software. For the first time, slip rates provided by the geodetic network are established directly on the TGFZ segments, filling a significant deficiency in the literature, contributing to understanding the tectonics of the country and the region, and providing an important dataset for evaluating the degree of seismic activity of the fault zone. The slip rates obtained within the scope of this study are approximately 1.8 mm/yr strike-slip and 2 mm/yr dip-slip for the Acıpınar and Helvadere segments on that Aksaray city is built on. These results indicate that the active deformation in the TGFZ is greater than previously expressed compared to the slip rates calculated in previous studies. Key words: Tuz Gölü Fault Zone, velocity field, block modeling, global positioning system, GPS, Central Anatolia 1. Introduction al., 2013; Özener et al., 2010, Yavaşoğlu et al., 2011, Tatar et Countries with high seismicity, such as Turkey, try to al., 2012; Tiryakioğlu et al., 2013, 2017; Havazlı and Özener, take precautionary measures to reduce the consequences 2021). It is possible to obtain the latest information about of earthquakes. Many different fields of study focus on a fault zone (i.e. velocity field, strain values, fault-locking analyzing strong ground motions and understanding the depth, and shear rates) in the inter-seismic, pre-seismic, plate mechanisms that cause earthquakes. In recent years, co-seismic, and post-seismic periods from evaluation of since the development of the Global Navigation Satellite the repeated GNSS observations. These observations are Systems (GNSS) technology, the ability to determine plate repeated at certain periods using the geodetic monitoring mechanisms has accelerated rapidly, and many studies have networks established by considering the geometric been carried out to determine tectonic activities (Feigl et al., structure of the fault zone (Tiryakioğlu, 2015; Doğru et al., 1990; McClusky et al., 2000; Burgmann et al., 2002; Ergintav 2019; Oktar and Erdoğan, 2018; Poyraz et al., 2019; Gezgin et al., 2002, Reilinger et al., 2006, Aktuğ et al., 2009; Uzel et et al., 2020; Aktuğ et al., 2021; Eyubagil et al., 2021). * Correspondence: cemilgezgin.jfm@gmail.com 20 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
GEZGİN et al. / Turkish J Earth Sci Turkey is one of the most seismically active regions of The Central Anatolian Region, a transition zone the world (McKenzie, 1972). The neotectonic development between other neotectonic regions in Turkey, contains of Turkey and its neighboring zones is closely related to the active faults of different characteristics and in several continental collision and subsequent geological processes directions due to the effects of the pull-apart basin from due to the continental convergence between the Eurasian the west and the escape regime of the Anatolian Plate, and Arabian plates (Şengör et al., 1985). Although Turkey which is compressed from the east (Şengör, 1980; Koçyiğit, is a country with intense seismicity, the Central Anatolian 2003; Kürçer and Gökten, 2014a). Recent studies on the Region, in which Turkey is contained, is considered TGFZ, which is one of these active faults, show that a relatively quiet region in terms of seismicity. In this segments of the fault zone (Acıpınar, Helvadere) around region, there are secondary fault systems and fault zones Aksaray city have the potential to generate magnitude 6.8 that divide the Anatolian Plate into smaller blocks and or greater earthquakes (Kürçer and Gökten, 2012; Emre et contribute to the tectonic development of the entire plate al., 2013; Kürçer and Gökten, 2014a). In addition, Aksaray (Figure 1a). Examples of these secondary fault systems and city, which has a population of approximately 250,000 and zones are the left-lateral Central Anatolian fault zone, the is built on alluvial soil, was built on the Acıpınar segment TGFZ, which is a normal fault zone with a right-lateral of the TGFZ. Aksaray, one of the most rapidly growing strike-slip component, the İnönü-Eskişehir fault system, cities in Turkey due to its increasing population and and the Akşehir fault zone (Dirik and Göncüoğlu, 1996; intense industrial potential, also hosts important national Koçyiğit and Beyhan, 1998; Dirik, 2001; Koçyiğit, 2003; investment projects such as the Tuz Gölü Natural Gas Koçyiğit and Özacar, 2003). Underground Storage Project. Therefore, determining the Figure 1. a) Map showing the main neotectonic elements and regions of Turkey and the location of the TGFZ (Modified from Şengör et al., 1985). Black arrows indicate GPS‐derived plate rotations relative to Eurasia (Reilinger et al., 2006). b) Border of the study area and active faults in Central Anatolia (Dirik and Erol, 2003; Dirik, 2001; Dirik and Göncüoğlu, 1996; Göncüoğlu et al., 1996; Koçyiğit and Özacar, 2003; Özsayın and Dirik, 2007; Emre et al., 2013). 21
GEZGİN et al. / Turkish J Earth Sci slip rate and, thus, the deformation potential of the fault by non-parallel oblique-slip faults were defined as “plain” zone in detail, is a necessity. and this region was named the “Central Anatolian plain Long-term slip rates in which geological and region” (Şengör, 1980). geomorphological data are taken into account within the Central Anatolia is a continuation of the Western studies that have been conducted to determine the slip rate Anatolian extension system, which gradually weakens of the TGFZ (Çiner et al., 2011; Kürçer, 2012; Özsayın et al., toward the east. Also, the Central Anatolian Plain forms 2013; Kürçer and Gökten, 2014a; Yıldırım, 2014; Öztürk et a transition zone between other neotectonic regions in al., 2018). However, it is difficult to compare the present- our country (Şengör 1980; Dirik and Göncüoğlu, 1996; day rates of faulting and the long-term geological faulting Koçyiğit and Beyhan, 1998; Dirik, 2001; Koçyiğit and Erol, rates because of the large uncertainties of most geological 2001; Dirik and Erol, 2003; Koçyiğit and Özacar, 2003; estimates (Reilinger et al., 2006; Yavaşoğlu et al., 2011). Koçyiğit, 2005). Only in the previous study, the region was investigated Because of its morphotectonic features and current geodetically (Aktuğ et al., 2013), so the fault could not be micro-earthquake activity, the NW–SE-trending TGFZ, evaluated based on the segments. The behaviors that led approximately 220 km long, is one of the most important to the dissimilarities could not be determined, since the active tectonic elements in Central Anatolia and has been study was evaluated at the scale of Central Anatolia. The studied by many researchers. The fault zone, which was first density of the GNSS sites used (30–50 km) was insufficient defined by Beekman (1966) and named the “Tuz Lake fault to determine the deformation of the TGFZ. In other zone,” has also been examined under the names “Tuzgölü words, this study does not have a large enough GNSS site Fault,” “Koçhisar-Aksaray Fault,” and “Koçhisar-Aksaray density to fully determine the slip rates for the TGFZ. In fault zone” in the studies carried out in the following years other studies, Fernandez-Blanco et al. (2013) and Simao et (Şengör, 1980; Uygun, 1981; Şaroğlu et al., 1987; Derman al. (2016) have re-used the velocity vectors from Aktuğ et et al., 2003). Also, the TGFZ is a structure that separates al. (2013), and no new measurement results related to the the Kayseri-Sivas neotectonic region, a transtensional study area have been presented. neotectonic regime, and the Konya-Eskişehir neotectonic In this study, based on the need for a better region, an extensional neotectonic regime (Koçyiğit, 2000; understanding of the seismic deformation in the region, Kürçer et al., 2012), (Figure 1a). the goal is to determine the present-day slip rate and There are different assessments in the literature of deformation area of the southern part of the TGFZ, the character of the TGFZ. According to one group of which poses a direct threat to Aksaray, Niğde, and the researchers, the fault has right-lateral strike slip with a surrounding provinces. For this purpose, a homogeneous thrust component (Şengör et al., 1985; Şaroğlu et al., 1987), geodetic network named the Tuz Gölü Tectonic GNSS while according to other researchers, it is a right-lateral Network (TUGNE) was created for the first time with this strike-slip fault with a normal component (Beekman, study on the southern segments of the TGFZ located in the 1966; Emre, 1991; Toprak and Göncüoğlu, 1993; Dirik and Central Anatolia region with 24 new GNSS sites and two Göncüoğlu, 1996; Koçyiğit ve Beyhan, 1998; Çemen et al., continuously operating reference stations (CORS). The velocity field of the region is determined using the GNSS 1999; Dirik and Erol, 2000; Toprak, 2000; Koçyiğit, 2003). measurements made on TUGNE and the data of TNFGN According to the most recent studies carried out in the and CORS-TR stations located around the study area. region, the fault was defined as a normal fault with a right- Using these velocity vectors, block modeling is conducted lateral strike-slip component (Leventoğlu, 1994; Çemen et on TGFZ using the GeodSuit software. al., 1999; Gürbüz, 2012; Özsayın et al., 2013; Kürçer and Gökten, 2014a) and according to Derman et al. (2000), it 2. Tectonic setting was defined as a normal fault with a left-lateral strike-slip Turkey is one of the most actively deforming regions of component. the Alpine-Himalayan belt due to its geological location Similarly, the age of the TGFZ has been reported (McKenzie, 1978; Giardini et al., 2013). The main to be as old as the late Cretaceous (Görür and Derman, structures controlling the seismic activity of Turkey and its 1978; Uygun et al., 1982; Görür et al., 1984; Çemen et surroundings are the North Anatolian fault zone (NAFZ), al., 1999; Dirik and Erol, 2000; Işık, 2009) or as young as the continental collision and the East Anatolian fault Late Pliocene–Quaternary. (Koçyiğit, 2003; Kürçer, 2012; zone (EAFZ), the Aegean stress system, the sinistral Dead Gürbüz and Kazancı, 2015). Koçyiğit (2000) stated that the Sea fault zone (DSFZ), and the Aegean-Cyprus Aegean- activation of the TGFZ post-dated the early Pliocene age, Cyprian Arc, which is an active subduction zone (Şengör Kürçer (2012) later agreed with this assessment. et al., 1985; Bozkurt, 2001; Aktuğ et al., 2016). In the studies on the TGFZ, the fault zone was evaluated In the Central Anatolian Region of Turkey, the stress- by the General Directorate of the Mineral Research and originated basins (Tuz Gölü and Konya basins) bounded Exploration of Turkey (MTA) by dividing it into six 22
GEZGİN et al. / Turkish J Earth Sci segments (Duman et al., 2017). In another study by Kürçer interval of this segment was 8980 years. In addition, they (2012), the fault was evaluated by dividing it into 11 have determined that it has been 4010 years since the geometric fault segments. In this study, the segmentation last earthquake on the segment to the present day. On chosen by the MTA was used for the calculation and the Akhisar-Kılıç segment, three earthquakes have been visualization processes (Figure 2a). identified within the past 23,000 years, the earthquake Both the morphotectonic features of the TGFZ, recurrence period of the segment was found to be 10,390 which forms the northeastern border of Tuz Gölü and years, and the time from the last earthquake to the present the distribution of the epicenters of earthquakes reaching day was found to be 2340 years. magnitude 5 in the region indicate that this fault zone In this study, the magnitudes of the largest earthquakes is still active today (Koçyiğit, 2003; Kürçer et al., 2012), that could be produced by segments close to Aksaray (3 and (Figure 2b). However, studies on the deformation that 4 in Figure 2a) and Niğde (5 and 6 in Figure 2a) provinces may occur and the destruction it will cause in the Central in the south of the zone were calculated. Accordingly, Anatolia region are very limited. Kürçer et al. (2012) have considering the lengths of the segments and using the determined that the Tuzgölü (2 and 3 in Figure 2a) and equations proposed by Wells and Coppersmith (1994) for Akhisar-Kılıç (4 and 5 in Figure 2a) segments are the two normal faults, the largest earthquakes that the Acıpınar most important structural fault segments of the TGFZ and Helvadere segments of the TGFZ can produce are due to their length and geomorphological features. They calculated as 7.2 and 6.9, respectively, and these values for have conducted paleoseismology studies to determine the the Altunhisar segment are 6.6 and 6.8. These calculations earthquake potential of these segments. Kürçer et al. (2012) indicate that devastating damages and loss of life may have identified four earthquakes on the Tuzgölü segment occur in the surrounding provinces such as Niğde, Konya, in the last 31,000 years, and the earthquake recurrence and, in particular, in the city center of Aksaray, which is Figure 2. a) Segments of the TGFZ (Segments were taken from Duman et al., 2017) b) Seismicity of the TGFZ and surroundings between 1900 and June 2021 (KOERI Database). The circles represent Mw ≥ 2 earthquakes that occurred over the study area. The size of each circle represents the magnitude of the respective earthquake, while the color represents the depth. 23
GEZGİN et al. / Turkish J Earth Sci largely built on alluvial soil. This situation necessitated blocks relative to each other. The number of GNSS sites creating a homogeneously distributed geodetic network in the setup profiles and the distance of these sites to the with a density that can cover the fault zone in sufficient fault zone were determined depending on the depth of the detail to detect the deformation of the TGFZ segments seismogenic zone. A statistical evaluation of earthquake with high precision and monitor this network periodically. focal depths showed that earthquakes on the TGFZ occurred at an average depth of 10 km (Figure 2). The focal 3. GNSS observations and processing depths of the earthquakes occurring around Mount Hasan In this study, 24 GNSS sites and 2 CORS were established and Altunhisar were deeper than the average, suggesting in the E-NE and W-SW directions, perpendicular to the that several earthquakes in this region might be volcanic Acıpınar, Helvadere, Altunhisar, and Bor segments of in origin (Kürçer and Gökten, 2014a). For this reason, the the TGFZ. Thus, the Tuz Gölü Tectonic GNSS Network GNSS sites were established at 2, 7, 15, 30, and 50 km on (TUGNE) was created for this study with a density that can both sides of the fault. In addition, to monitor the tectonic characterize the southern part of the TGFZ. In addition to movements of the region in real time, two CORS were TUGNE, a geodetic network with a total of 51 sites with a established in the study area, approximately 5 km away density that can characterize the entire TGFZ was formed and perpendicular to the fault (KRTS, CLTK in Figure with 25 sites added from the CORS-TR and TNFGN 4). All of the GNSS sites on TUGNE were concrete pillars networks around the study area (Figure 3). to eliminate centering errors. In this study, five campaign Since the TGFZ is a right-lateral strike-slip fault, the measurements on TUGNE, covering the period between GNSS sites were established with five cross-sectional 2018 and 2020, daily GNSS datasets between 2019 and profiles in order to detect the lateral movements of the 2020 (~22 months) of CLTK and KRTS stations, and Figure 3. Map showing the Tuz Gölü Tectonic GNSS Network. TUGNE, CORS-TR, and TNFGN sites are indicated by blue triangles and green and red dots, respectively. The red lines show the active faults in the region, taken from Emre et al., 2013. 24
GEZGİN et al. / Turkish J Earth Sci Figure 4. Horizontal velocity field of the study area in the Eurasian-fixed frame. TUGNE, CORS-TR, and TNFGN sites are indicated by blue triangles, green, and red dots, respectively. The red lines show the active faults in the region. Active faults were taken from Emre et al., 2013. measurements obtained from CORS-TR (2015–2020) format and processed in two steps. In the first step, the and TNFGN stations (2003–2018) were evaluated (Table preliminary data that contains the position estimates 1). The GNSS results were used to obtain the velocity is obtained with the GAMIT module. In the second field of the study area and for block modeling. Campaign step, Kalman filtering is applied to the preliminary data measurements were made in 6-month intervals in the obtained from the GAMIT in the GLOBK module, and the same month of the year to minimize seasonal effects solutions are obtained (King and Bock, 2000; Feigl et al., during campaigns. In measurements of the 24 GNSS 1990). In this study, the USNO_bull_b values were used campaign sites, the same GNSS receiver was used at the as the Earth rotation parameters (ERP). The 9-parameter same station each year. The GNSS measurements were Berne model, also used as a standard by SOPAC, was performed for 20 h over two days at all sites using 4 used for radiation pressure effects (Springer et al., 1999; Havazlı and Özener, 2021). The Scherneck model (IERS Topcon GR3, 6 Leica GS15, 3 Ashtech Z-Xtreme, and 7 standards, 1992) was used for the ocean tide loading Thales Z-Max GNSS receivers. effect (Scherneck, 1991). The zenith delay unknowns were calculated at 2 h intervals based on the Saastamoinen a 4. Results priori standard troposphere model (Saastamoinen, 1973). 4.1 GNSS velocity solution During the evaluation, the iono-free LC (L3) linear GNSS measurements on the established network were combination of the carrier phases L1 and L2 was used, evaluated using the GAMIT/GLOBK software package and a height-dependent model was preferred for antenna v10.71. GNSS observations were converted to RINEX phase centers. 25
GEZGİN et al. / Turkish J Earth Sci Table 1. Observational spans of the sites used in the study. Name* 2003 2004 2006 2010 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Name** 2018 2019-1 2019-2 2020-1 2020-2 ACHY X X X N.1 X X X X AKTS X X X N.2 X X X X ALHK X X N.3 X X X X X ALTI X X X N.4 X X X X X ARAP X X X N.5 X X X X DERK X X X N.6 X X X X X GUZY X X X N.7 X X X X X KOLU X X X N.8 X X X X KRKV X X X N.9 X X X X KRPN X X N.10 X X X X KRYL X X X N.11 X X X X KSKN X X N.12 X X X X X OKLV X X X N.14 X X X X ORTA X X N.15 X X X X PASD X X X N.16 X X X X X SERE X X X N.17 X X X X X SLKY X X X N.18 X X X X SLSR X X X N.19 X X X X X TASP X X X N.20 X X X X X TAVS X X X AKSR*** X X X X X UZUN X X X CLTK X X X X * These sites founded by TNFGN. KAP1*** X X X X X ** These sites founded by this study. KRTS X X X X *** These sites founded by CORS-TR. NEV1*** X X X X X The Eurasian plate motion was taken as the reference examining the horizontal and vertical velocities given in in accordance with the stabilization frame. In this study, Figure 4 and Table 2, and the standard deviation values of 21 stations with stable time series (weighted root mean the GNSS sites vary between 1–2 mm. square-WRMS value of 1–2 mm for horizontal positioning) 4.2 Block modeling were selected for the stabilization process. As a result of the After obtaining the velocity field of the region, block five iterative solutions performed in the evaluation, the 22 modeling was performed using the GeodSuit software International GNSS Service (IGS) stations (ADIS, ANKR, and data from 45 GNSS sites to calculate the fault slip BOR1, BUCU, CRAO, DRAG, GLSV, POLV, RAMO, parameters. GeodSuit software is used in many studies TUBI, ZECK, GRAS, GRAZ, ISTA, MATE, NICO, NOT1, to analyze geodetic measurements to define geodynamic ONSA, POTS, SOFI, TELA, VILL) that gave the best parameters of tectonic events such as strain accumulations, results were used for stabilization. The post-RMS values plate motions, crustal deformations, and fault slip rates of the velocities calculated after GLOBK stabilization were (Aktuğ et al., 2010; Tiryakioğlu et al., 2018b; Yavaşoğlu 0.30 mm/year for the Eurasian plate. The resulting GNSS et al., 2021). The calculations were made with the block velocities in the Eurasia-fixed frame are given in Table 2 modeling module of the GeodSuit software. This module and Figure 4. Some of the GNSS sites (N13, N21, N23, is based on Okada’s (1985) theory of dislocations in Elastic N24, N25, KRPN) had high RMS values due to the lack of Half-Space model. In this model, both in analytical and sufficient measurements during, or destructed before, the numerical methods, in order to simplify the problem, the field studies were excluded from the evaluation process. earth’s crust is assumed to be half-space instead of a whole- The movement to the west and northwest directions space where the normal stress and surface forces are zero in the Eurasian-fixed frame has been determined by on any of its surfaces. In this case, it is assumed that the 26
GEZGİN et al. / Turkish J Earth Sci Table 2. Estimated velocities of the GNSS sites with 1σ uncertainties. Velocity (mm/yr) RMS (mm/yr) Velocity (mm/yr) RMS (mm/yr) GNSS Site GNSS Site Evel Nvel Evel Nvel Evel Nvel Evel Nvel ACHY −16.82 2.46 0.50 0.58 N7 −17.12 8.03 1.56 1.81 AKSR −19.21 2.42 0.14 0.15 N8 −17.72 6.35 1.83 2.19 AKTS −14.89 3.57 0.39 0.45 N9 −19.30 1.11 1.54 1.81 ALHK −15.89 4.05 0.55 0.64 N10 −19.32 −0.16 1.33 1.60 ALTI −18.64 −1.20 0.54 0.61 N11 −16.77 3.84 1.32 1.42 ARAP −14.33 4.95 0.36 0.41 N12 −8.95 5.53 1.09 1.26 CLTK −15.95 3.86 0.11 0.12 N14 −14.05 5.86 1.91 2.25 DERK −16.96 4.81 0.47 0.56 N15 −21.25 5.32 1.21 1.41 GUZY −16.77 2.81 0.44 0.49 N16 −17.36 4.28 0.98 1.13 KAP1 −18.01 0.16 0.46 0.53 N17 −30.52 3.86 1.12 1.25 KOLU −17.65 2.20 0.31 0.36 N18 −14.27 3.94 1.48 1.69 KRKV −17.17 3.18 0.36 0.42 N19 −14.62 10.31 1.03 1.20 KRTS −18.57 1.97 0.11 0.12 N20 −17.75 13.83 1.38 1.63 KRYL −14.79 3.08 0.54 0.58 NEV1 −17.73 5.97 0.38 0.42 TAVS −20.18 −1.01 0.93 1.10 UZUN −18.94 −1.04 0.89 0.99 PASD −19.80 1.78 0.26 0.31 KSKN −17.66 3.16 0.86 1.05 N1 −22.00 2.43 1.22 1.41 TASP −17.52 1.27 0.32 0.38 N2 −15.14 2.98 1.37 1.56 NIGD −15.24 4.51 0.15 0.16 N3 −21.63 3.87 1.87 2.13 OKLV −17.34 0.86 0.50 0.55 N4 −18.45 −1.03 1.24 1.43 ORTA −15.64 6.22 1.40 1.70 N5 −16.11 2.56 1.22 1.39 SERE −20.77 −3.26 2.15 2.58 N6 −24.63 7.44 1.59 1.80 SLKY −14.49 4.30 0.34 0.39 SLSR –17.72 4.47 0.27 0.31 surface forces and stress values of one of the blocks are center of the coordinate system of the fault plane and its constant in block modeling. Accordingly, the analytical coordinates in a coordinate system parallel to the fault equations used in this study for strike-slip and dip-slip in a plane, ξ, η and q represents the coordinates on the fault rectangular area (fault plane) are given below. plane coordinate system of the fault plane origin, R is the For strike slip; distance of the fault starting point to the origin, ui (i: x, y, z) represents the fault direction, dip angle and displacements 𝑢𝑢! 𝑢𝑢=! − " !" = − $! $ %& %& ++ tan,- %*%* tan,- + 𝐼𝐼 sin 𝛿𝛿] (4.1) perpendicular to the fault plane, respectively. #$ #$ '(')*) '(')*) &'&' +-𝐼𝐼- sin 𝛿𝛿] (4.1) In the block modeling, the block boundaries are " !" . " &. " & / 012 3 3 𝑢𝑢. 𝑢𝑢=. − = − $! $ + + / 012+ 𝐼𝐼#𝐼𝐼sin + 𝛿𝛿] # sin 𝛿𝛿] (4.2) (4.2) determined using the fault geometries defined in the #$ #$ '(')*) '(')*) ')* ')* " " 5 " &5 " & / 267 3 3 / 267 region first. The block boundaries are defined as the two = −! $ ! $ 𝑢𝑢4 𝑢𝑢=4 − #$ #$ '(')*) ++ ++ 𝐼𝐼8𝐼𝐼sin 𝛿𝛿]𝛿𝛿] 8 sin (4.3) (4.3) main sections of the TGFZ. The first block is the NE block '(')*) ')* ')* ForFor dip-slip; dip-slip; of the TGFZ (Block 1). The second block is the SW block " "&# & of the TGFZ (Block 2). In the block definition, the faults 𝑢𝑢! 𝑢𝑢=! − = −# #$ $ $+ + #$ ' ' 9 𝐼𝐼 𝐼𝐼sin 9 sin 𝛿𝛿 .𝛿𝛿cos . cos 𝛿𝛿]𝛿𝛿] (4.4) (4.4) were defined as SW dipping, the rigidity of the Earth’s crust " "# "# . " &. & " ,-! "!* * was 30 GPa (Aydan, 2000; Tiryakioğlu et al., 2018a). The 𝑢𝑢. 𝑢𝑢=. − = −$ $ ") ")++ cos cos 𝛿𝛿 .𝛿𝛿tan . tan ,- − 𝐼𝐼 sin 𝛿𝛿 . cos 𝛿𝛿] ')*− 𝐼𝐼- -sin 𝛿𝛿 . cos 𝛿𝛿] (4.5) (4.5) #$ #$ '(')! '(')! ')* average earthquake depth in the region is determined to ."& 𝑢𝑢4 𝑢𝑢=4 − "# ."& = "−# #$ $ $'(')%) ++ sinsin 𝛿𝛿 .𝛿𝛿tan ,-,- . tan %* %* − 𝐼𝐼 sin 𝛿𝛿 . cos 𝛿𝛿] − 𝐼𝐼: :sin 𝛿𝛿 . cos 𝛿𝛿] (4.6) (4.6) be 10 km (Kürçer, 2012; KOERI Database), and therefore, &' #$ '(')%) &' we assumed a uniform locking depth of 10 km for TGFZ In the equations given above (Eq. 4.1-4.6), Ui are slip in our modeling process. We used 68°, 70°, and 78° dip vector components, δ is dip angle, y’ and d’ denotes the angles in the three-segment model and 68°, 70°, 74°, 27
GEZGİN et al. / Turkish J Earth Sci and 81° in the four-segment model, from north to south, and normalized root mean square (NRMS) values were respectively. The dip angles were calculated from the fault determined for the block models using the formulations slip data reported in Kürçer and Gökten (2014a). In block given in Equations 4.7 and 4.8. modeling, two different models were created to examine the changes in the three-segment and four-segment !! ∑ ( 𝑟𝑟 * formation of the two-block fault, and the slip rates were & 𝜎𝜎 (4.7) 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 = separately calculated for each of them. In the three- 𝑛𝑛 − 1 segment model, segments 1, 2, and 3 are defined together as the first segment, segment 4 is the second segment, and 𝑟𝑟 !! 𝑛𝑛 ∑ (𝜎𝜎 * segments 5 and 6 as taken together as the third segment 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 = . ! (4.8) (Figure 5). In the four-segment model, unlike the three- 𝑛𝑛 − 2 1 ! ∑ (𝜎𝜎* segment model, segments 5 and 6 are evaluated separately (Figure 6). Block modeling was performed according to In the equations given above (Eq. 4.7–4.8), r is the these block boundaries and segmentation, and strike- residual, σ is the residual velocity formal error, and n is slips, dip-slips, and residual velocities were obtained. On the number of observations. The NRMS identifies as the the other hand, weighted root mean square (WRMS) unitless marker of how good the data are fit and should Figure 5. Three-segment block model residuals with 95% confidence ellipses. The positive values in the first and negative values in the second row correspond to right-lateral and normal slips, respectively. 28
GEZGİN et al. / Turkish J Earth Sci Figure 6. Four-segment block model residuals with 95% confidence ellipses. The positive values in the first and negative values in the second rows correspond to right-lateral and normal slips, respectively. be near unity while the WRMS gives a measure of the a segment model and is shown in Figure 6. In this model, posteriori weighted scatter in the fits and has units of the the slip rates obtained were 2.0 ± 0.7 mm/yr strike-slip and measurement kind. (McCaffrey, 2005). −2.6 ± 0.7 mm/yr dip-slip; and 2.4 ± 0.7 mm/yr strike- In Figure 4, where the TGFZ is evaluated as three slip and −2.6 ± 0.7 mm/yr dip-slip, for the Altunhisar segments, 1.6 ± 0.7 mm/yr strike-slip and −1.1 ± 0.7 mm/ and Bor segments, respectively. When the two models yr dip-slip rates are obtained in the northern part of the (Figure 5 and Figure 6) are compared, the obtained slip TGFZ, which includes the Büyükkışla, Koçhisar, and rates are approximately equal, and these two models are Acıpınar segments. The slip rates calculated for the central compatible with each other. When Figures 5 and 6 are part of the TGFZ, which includes the Helvadere segment, examined, it is seen that slip rate values are significant with are 1.8 ± 0.7 mm/yr and −2.1 ± 0.7 mm/yr. For the southern 95% confidence ellipses. Normalized RMS = 2.38 mm and part of the TGFZ that represents the Altunhisar and Bor weighted RMS = 1.00 mm were computed for the both segments as a whole, the values obtained are 2.2 ± 0.7 mm/ three-segment and four-segment models. However, it is yr and −2.5 ± 0.6 mm/yr. thought that the block model residuals will reduce as the The four-segment model, in which Altunhisar and Bor number of GNSS measurements made in the established segments are evaluated separately, differs from the three- geodetic network increases. 29
GEZGİN et al. / Turkish J Earth Sci 5. Discussion and conclusion The GNSS-derived slip rates of the TGFZ obtained from This study explored the current velocity field and slip rates this study in a three-segment model are 1.6 ± 0.7 mm/yr of the TGFZ, a major tectonic structure in the Central and −1.1 ± 0.7 mm/yr (segments 1, 2 and 3), 1.8 ± 0.7 mm/ Anatolia region. For this purpose, a region-specific GNSS yr and -2.1 ± 0.7 mm/yr (segment 4), 2.2 ± 0.7 mm/yr and network (TUGNE), composed of campaign observation −2.5 ± 0.6 mm/yr (segment 5 and 6) from north to south. sites and continuously operating stations, was built to The positive value in the first slip rate indicates right-lateral clarify the kinematic characteristics of the tectonically movement and the negative value in the second slip rate active TGFZ and also contribute to the understanding indicates normal slip. In the four-segment model, where of tectonics on regional and country scales. First, due segments 5 and 6 are evaluated separately, the slip rates of to the lack of previous GNSS campaign datasets in the segment 5 were obtained as 2.0 ± 0.7 mm/yr and −2.6 ± 0.7 region, new GNSS observations were conducted across mm/yr. Slip rates of the segment 6 are calculated as 2.4 ± the TGFZ and surroundings to determine recent tectonic 0.7 mm/yr and −2.6 ± 0.7 mm/yr. deformations. Therefore, GNSS observations performed Although there is no detailed block model study using in 2020 on TUGNE, which was the fifth campaign after GNSS velocities in the region, a block model including the 2018 and 2019, have major value for comprehending the study area was published in Aktuğ et al. (2013). The GNSS- recent kinematics of the TGFZ and the Central Anatolian derived slip rates of the TGFZ determined by Aktuğ et al. Region. In addition to the new dataset acquired in 2020, (2013) are 4.7 ± 0.1 mm/year right-lateral slip and 1.2 ± two continuously operating GNSS stations were merged 0.1 mm/year normal slip, based on a block residual model. into our regional network to densify the observation sites Since the study was evaluated at the scale of the entire spatially and temporally. The new campaign dataset and Central Anatolian Region, fewer GNSS sites were used to the data from the continuously operating GNSS stations determine the slip rate of TGFZ compared to this study. provided from this study are unique datasets that were not Even so, the block model results obtained from this study available previously. and Aktuğ et al. (2013) are consistent with each other. These new datasets have allowed the precise estimation However, only the GNSS site distribution used for the first of velocity values for the TGFZ and its surroundings. time in this study is dense enough to correctly represent the The final estimated velocity values for the GNSS sites on southern part of TGFZ. In the paleoseismological studies and around the TGFZ reach 20 mm/yr in the horizontal (Kürçer et al., 2012; Kürçer and Gökten, 2014b) carried out direction. The GNSS velocity values provided from this in the region, the time elapsed from the last earthquake to study are compatible with earlier studies (Reilinger et al., the present was found to be 4010 years for the Tuz Gölü 2006; Aktuğ et al., 2013; Simao et al., 2016). segment and 2340 years for the Akhisar-Kılıç segment. In Many studies have been conducted using different addition, the annual slip rate of the TGFZ was calculated methods to calculate slip rates in the region. The geological as 0.040 – 0.053 mm (average 0.046 mm) in these studies. vertical slip rates of the TGFZ offered in earlier studies are Contrary to the slip rates obtained in paleoseismological 2–4 mm/year for the last 23,000 years (Çiner et al., 2011), studies, the geodetic slip rates obtained within the scope of 0.05 mm/year based on deformed ignimbrites (Kürçer and this study indicate that the active deformation in the zone Gökten, 2012), 0.08 and 0.13 mm/year based on a displaced is actually higher than stated. Late Miocene–Early Pliocene limestone horizon (Özsayın et al., 2013), and 0.05 and 0.5 mm/year from geomorphic Acknowledgment analyses (Yıldırım, 2014). It is hard to compare the recent This research was supported by the Scientific and faulting rates with the long-term geological rates due to Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK, the uncertainties of the geological estimates (Reilinger et Project Number: 118Y068) and Disaster and Emergency al., 2006). However, the published geological vertical slip Management Presidency of Turkey - AFAD (UDAP, Project rates are consistent with the slip rates derived from GNSS Number UDAP-Ç-18-01). The authors would like to thank in this study. Asuman Akşit for her contributions to the UDAP project. 30
GEZGİN et al. / Turkish J Earth Sci References Aktug B, Nocquet JM, Cingöz A, Parsons B, Erkan Y et al. (2009). Dirik K, Göncüoğlu MC (1996). Neotectonic characteristics of Deformation of western Turkey from a combination of Central Anatolia. International Geology Review 38: 807-817. permanent and campaign GPS data: Limits to block-like Dirik K (2001). Neotectonic evolution of the northwestward arched behavior. Journal of Geophysical Research 114 (B10). doi: segment of the Central Anatolian fault zone, Central Anatolia, 10.1029/2008jb006000 Turkey. Geodinamica Acta 14: 147-158. Aktug B, Kaypak B, Çelik RN (2010). Source parameters of 03 Doğru A, Aktuğ B, Bulut F, Özener H (2019). GPS-derived source February 2002 Çay earthquake, Mw 6.6 and aftershocks from parameters of the 2014 North Aegean earthquake (Mw 6.9). GPS data, southwestern Turkey. Journal of Seismology 14: 445- Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 28 (5): 661-670. 456. Duman TY, Emre Ö, Selim Özalp S, Çan T, Olgun Ş et al. (2017). Aktug B, Parmaksız E, Kurt M, Lenk O, Kılıçoglu A et al. (2013). Türkiye ve yakın çevresindeki diri faylar ve özellikleri. Türkiye Deformation of Central Anatolia: GPS implications. Journal of Sismotektonik Haritası Açıklama Kitabı (Ed. T.Y. Duman). Geodynamics 67: 78-96. Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Müdürlüğü Özel Yayınlar Aktug B, Özener H, Doğru A, Sabuncu A, Turgut B et al. (2016). Slip Serisi-34, 12 s. Ankara-Türkiye. rates and seismic potential on the east anatolian fault system Eyubagil E, Solak H, Kayak U, Tiryakioglu I, Sozbilir H et al. (2021). using an improved GPS velocity field. Journal of Geodynamics Present day strike-slip deformation within the southern part 94–95: 1–12. of the Izmir-Balikesir Transfer Zone based on GNSS data and Aktug B, Tiryakioğlu İ, Sözbilir H, Özener H, Özkaymak Ç et implications for seismic hazard assessment in western Anatolia. al. (2021). GPS Derived Finite Source Mechanism of the Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 30 (2): 143-160. 30 October 2020 Samos Earthquake, Mw=6.9 in Aegean extensional region. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 30: 718- Emre Ö (1991). Hasandağı-Keçiboyduran Dağı Volkanizmasının 737. doi: 10.3906/yer-2101-18 Jeomorfolojisi. PhD, İstanbul University, İstanbul, Turkey (in Turkish). Aydan Ö (2000). A new stress inference method for the stress state of Earth’s crust and its application. Yerbilimleri 22: 223-236. Emre Ö, Duman TY, Özalp S, Elmacı H, Olgun Ş et al. (2013). Açıklamalı Türkiye Diri Fay Haritası, Ölçek 1:1.250.000. Beekman PH (1966). The pliocene and quaternary volcanism in the Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Müdürlüğü, Özel Yayın Serisi, Hasan Dağ-melendiz dağ region. MTA Bulletin 66: 90-105. 30, Ankara (in Turkish). Bozkurt E (2001). Neotectonics of Turkey - A synthesis. Geodinamica Ergintav S, Bürgmann R, McClusky S, Çakmak R, Reilinger Acta 14 (1-3): 3-30. RE et al. (2002). Postseismic deformation near the İzmit Burgmann R, Ayhan ME, Fielding EJ, Wright TJ, McClusky S et al. Earthquake (08/17/1999, M =7.5) rupture zone. Bulletin of the (2002). Deformation during the 12 November 1999 Düzce, Seismological Society of America 92 (1): 194-207. Turkey Earthquake, from GPS and InSAR Data. Bulletin of the Feigl KL, King RW, Jordan TH (1990). Geodetic measurement of Seismological Society of America 92 (1): 161-171. tectonic deformation in the santa maria fold and thrust belt, Çemen İ, Göncüoğlu MC, Dirik K (1999). Structural evolution of the California. Journal of Geophysical Research 95 (B3): 2679- Tuzgölü basin in Central Anatolia, Turkey. Journal of Geologys 2699. 107: 693-706. Fernandez-Blanco D, Bertotti G, Çiner A (2013). Cenozoic tectonics Çiner A, Aydar E, Dirik K, Rojay B, Özsayın E, Ersoy O, Çubukçu E, of the Tuz Gölü Basin (Central Anatolia Plateau, Turkey). Kutluay A, Yıldırım, C (2011). Vertical Anatolian Movement Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 22 (5): 715-738. Project (VAMP), TÜBİTAK Project No: 107Y333 Fowler CMR (1990). The solid earth-An introduction to Global Derman AS, Rojay B, Güney H, Yıldız M (2000). Koçhisar-Aksaray Geophysics, Cambridge University press, Cambridge fay zonu’nun evrimi hakkında yeni veriler, Haymana-Tuzgölü- Ulukışla basenlerinin uygulamalı çalışması. Bildiri Özetleri, 1, GeodSuit (2017). GeodSuit deformation nodule user manual. Aksaray (in Turkish). Ankara, Turkey. Derman AS, Rojay B, Güney H, Yıldız M (2003). Koçhisar-Aksaray Gezgin C, Tiryakioğlu İ, Ekercin S, Gürbüz E (2020). Monitoring fay zonu’nun evrimi hakkında yeni veriler. Türkiye Petrol of tectonic movements of southern part of the Tuz Gölü Fault Jeologları Derneği Haymana-Tuzgölü-Ulukışla Basenleri Zone (TGFZ) with GNSS Observations. Afyon Kocatepe Uygulamalı Çalışma-2001 (in Turkish). Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi 20 (3): 456- 464 (in Turkish with English abstract). Dirik K, Erol O (2000). Tuzgölü ve civarının tektonomorfolojik evrimi Orta Anadolu, Türkiye Haymana-Tuzgölü-Ulukışla Giardini D, Woessner J, Danciu L, Crowley H, Cotton F et al. (2013). Basenleri Uygulamalı Çalışma (Workshop). TPJD Bülteni, European Seismic Hazard Map for Peak Ground Acceleation, Özel sayı 5 (in Turkish). 10% Exceedance Probabilities in 50 years. Dirik K, Erol O (2003). Tuzgölü ve civarının tektonomorfolojik Görür N, Derman AS (1978). Tuzgölü-Haymana havzasının evrimi, Orta Anadolu-Türkiye. Türkiye Petrol Jeologları stratigrafik ve tektonik analizi, TPAO Rapor, 1514 (in Turkish). Derneği Özel Sayı 5: 27-46 (in Turkish). 31
GEZGİN et al. / Turkish J Earth Sci Görür N, Oktay FY, Seymen I, Şengör AMC (1984). Palaeotectonic Kürçer A, Gökten YE (2014b). Paleosismolojik üç boyutlu sanal evolution of the Tuzgölü basin complex, Central Turkey: fotoğraflama yöntemi, örnek çalışma: Duru-2011 Hendeği, Tuz sedimentary record of a Neo-Tethyan closure. Geological Gölü Fay Zonu, Orta Anadolu, Türkiye. Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni Society, London, Special Publications 17 (1): 467-482. 57 (1): 45-72. Gürbüz A, Kazancı N (2015). Genetic framework of Neogene– Kürçer A (2012). Tuz Gölü Fay Zonu’nun neotektonik özellikleri ve paleosismolojisi, Orta Anadolu, Türkiye. PhD, Ankara Quaternary basin closure process in central Turkey. Lithosphere Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, Turkey, (in 7 (4): 421-426. Turkish). Gürbüz A (2012). Tuz Gölü Havzası’nın Pliyo- Kuvaterner’deki Kürçer A, Yeleser L, Karzaoğlu H, Izladı E, Aykac S et al. (2012). Tektono-sedimanter evrimi. PhD, Ankara Üniversitesi, Fen Neotectonic Characteristics and paleoseismology of salt lake Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, Turkey (in Turkish). fault zone, Central Anatolia, Turkey. MTA Report No, 11573, Havazlı E, Özener H (2021). Investigation of strain accumulation Ankara, Turkey. along Tuzla fault – western Turkey. Turkish Journal of Earth Leventoğlu H (1994). Neotectonic characteristics of the central part of Sciences 30: 449-459. doi: 10.3906/yer-2009-9 the Tuzgölü fault zone around Mezgit (Aksaray). MSc, ODTÜ, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, Turkey. Işık V (2009). Ductile shear zone in granitoid of Central Anatolian Crystalline Complex, Turkey: Implications for Late Cretaceous McClusky S, Balassanian S, Barka A, Demir C, Ergintav S et al (2000). extensional deformation. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 34: Global positioning system constraints on plate kinematics and dynamics in the eastern mediterranean and caucasus. Journal of 507–521. Geophysical Research 105: 5695-5719. Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Boğaziçi McCaffrey R (2005). Block kinematics of the Pacific–North America University (1971). Boğazici University Kandilli Observatory plate boundary in the southwestern United States from inversion and Earthquake Research Institute [Data set]. International of GPS, seismological, and geologic data. Journal of Geophysical Federation of Digital Seismograph Networks. doi: 10.7914/SN/ Research: Solid Earth, 110 (B7). doi: 10.1029/2004JB003307 KO McKenzie D (1972). Active tectonics of the Mediterranean Region. King RW, Bock Y (2000). Documentation for the GAMIT GPS Analysis Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 30: Software, Program Manuel, MIT, Cambridge. 109–185. Koçyiğit A, Beyhan A (1998). A new intracontinental transcurrent McKenzie D (1978). Active tectonics of the Alpine—Himalayan belt: structure: the Central Anatolian Fault Zone, Turkey. the Aegean Sea and surrounding regions. Geophysical Journal Tectonophysics 284: 317-336. International 55 (1): 217-254. Koçyiğit A, Erol O (2001). A tectonic escape structure: Erciyes pull- Okada Y (1985). Surface deformatıon due to shear and tensile faults in apart basin, Kayseri, Central Anatolia, Turkey. Geodinamica a half-space. Bulletin of the Seismological, Society of America, Acta 14: 1-13. 75 (4): 1135-1154. Koçyiğit A, Özacar AA (2003). Extensional neotectonic regime through Oktar O, Erdoğan H (2018). Research of behaviors of continuous the NE edge of the outer Isparta angle, SW Turkey: new field and GNSS station by signal analysis methods. Earth Sciences, seismic data. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 12 (1): 67-90. Research Journal 22 (1): 19- 27. Koçyiğit A (2000). Orta Anadolu’nun genel neotektonik özellikleri Özener H, Arpat E, Ergintav S, Doğru A, Çakmak R et al. (2010). ve depremselliği. Haymana-Tuzgölü-Ulukışla basenlerinin Kinematics of the eastern part of the North Anatolian Fault uygulamalı çalışması Bildiri Özetleri, TPJD Bülteni, Özel sayı 5: Zone. Journal of Geodynamics 49: 141–150. 1-26, Aksaray (in Turkish). Özsayın E, Ciner TA, Rojay FB, Dirik RK, Melnick D et al. (2013). Koçyiğit A (2003). General neotectonic characteristics and seismicity Plio-Quaternary extensional tectonics of the Central Anatolian of central Anatolia. Turkish Association of Petroleum Geologist Plateau: a case study from the Tuz Gölü Basin, Turkey. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 22 (5): 691-714. Special Publication 5: 1-26. Öztürk MZ, Şener MF, Şener M, Şahiner E (2018). Quaternary slip- Koçyiğit A (2005). The Denizli graben-horst system and the eastern rates of the Bor segment of Tuzgölü fault zone. Ömer Halisdemir limit of western Anatolian continental extension: basin fill, Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi 7 (3): 1049-1053 (in structure, deformational mode, throw amount and episodic Turkish with English abstract). evolutionary history, SW Turkey. Geodinamica Acta 18 (3–4): 167–208. Poyraz F, Hastaoğlu KO, Koçbulut F, Tiryakioğlu I, Tatar O et al. (2019). Determination of the block movements in the eastern section of Kürçer A, Gökten E (2012). Paleoseismological three dimensional the Gediz Graben (Turkey) from GNSS measurements. Journal virtual photography method; a case study: Bağlarkayası-2010 of Geodynamics 123: 38-48. trench, Tuz Gölü fault zone, Central Anatolia, Turkey. Tectonics Reilinger R, McClusky S, Vernant P, Lawrence S, Ergintav S et Recent Advances, InTech 201-228. al. (2006). GPS constraints on continental deformation in Kürçer A, Gökten YE (2014a). Neotectonic-Period Characteristics, the Africa-Arabia-Eurasia continental collision zone and Seismicity, Geometry and Segmentation of The Tuz Gölü Fault implications for the dynamics of plate interactions. Journal of Zone. Maden Tetkik ve Arama Dergisi 149 (149): 19-68. Geophysical Research 111: B05411. 32
GEZGİN et al. / Turkish J Earth Sci Saastamoinen J (1973). Contributions to the theory of atmospheric Tiryakioğlu I, Özkaymak Ç, Baybura T, Sözbilir H, Uysal M (2018b). refraction. Bulletin Géodésique 107 (1): 13-34. doi: 10.1007/ Comparison of Palaeostress Analysis, Geodetic Strain Rates bf02522083 and Seismic Data in the the Western Part of the Sultandağı Scherneck HG (1991). A parametrized solid earth tide model Fault in Turkey. Annals of Geophysics 61 (3). doi: 10.4401/ag- and ocean tide loading effects for global geodetic baseline 7591 measurements. Geophysical Journal International 106 (3): 677- Toprak V, Göncüoğlu MC (1993). Tectonic control on the 694. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246x.1991.tb06339.x development of the Neogene-Quaternary Central Anatolian Simão NM, Nalbant SS, Sunbul F, Mutlu AK (2016). Central and Volcanic Province, Turkey. Geological Journal 28 (3-4): 357- eastern Anatolian crustal deformation rate and velocity fields 369. derived from GPS and earthquake data. Earth and Planetary Toprak V (2000). Tuzgölü Fay Kuşağı Hasandağ Kesiminin Science Letters 433: 89-98. Özellikleri, Haymana-Tuzgölü-Ulukışla Basenleri Uygulamalı Springer TA, Beutler G, Rothacher M (1999). A new solar radiation Çalışma 9-11 Ekim 2000. Türkiye Petrol Jeologları Derneği pressure model for GPS satellites. GPS Solutions 2 (3): 50-62. Özel sayı 5: 71-84 (in Turkish). doi: 10.1016/S0273-1177(99)00158-1 Uygun A (1981). Tuzgölü havzasının jeolojisi, evaporit oluşumları Şaroğlu F, Emre Ö, Boray A (1987). Türkiye’nin diri fayları ve ve hidrokarbon olanakları. TJK İç Anadolu’nun Jeolojisi depremselliği, MTA Rapor No: 8174 (in Turkish). Sempozyumu, Ankara, 66-71 (in Turkish). Şengör AMC (1980). Türkiye’nin neotektoniğinin esasları. Türkiye Uygun A, Yaşar M, Erkan MC, Baş H, Çelik E et al. (1982). Tuzgölü Jeoloji Kurumu yayını, 40 (in Turkish). Havzası projesi. Cilt 2, MTA Raporu (in Turkish). Şengör AMC, Görür N, Şaroğlu F (1985). Strike-slip faulting and Uzel T, Eren, K, Gulal E, Tiryakioğlu İ, Dindar AA et al. (2013). related basin formation in zones of tectonic escape: Turkey Monitoring the tectonic plate movements in Turkey based on as a case study. The Society of Economic Paleontologists and the national continuous GNSS network. Arabian Journal of Mineralogists, Special Publication 37: 227-264. Geosciences 6: 3573–3580. doi: 10.1007/s12517-012-0631-5 Tatar O, Poyraz F, Gürsoy H, Cakir Z, Ergintav S et al. (2012). Crustal Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994). New empirical relationships deformation and kinematics of the Eastern Part of the North among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, Anatolian Fault Zone (Turkey) from GPS measurements. and surface displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological Society Tectonophysics 518: 55-62. of America 84 (4): 974-1002. Tiryakioğlu İ (2015). Geodetic aspects of the 19 May 2011 Simav Yavaşoglu HH, Tiryakioglu I, Karabulut MF, Eyubagil EE, Ozkan A et earthquake in Turkey. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, al (2021). New geodetic constraints to reveal seismic potential 6 (1): 76-89. of central Marmara region. Turkey. Bulletin of Geophysics and Oceanography 62 (3): 513-526. Tiryakioğlu İ, Floyd M, Erdoğan S, Gülal E, Ergintav S et al. (2013). GPS constraints on active deformation in the Isparta angle Yavaşoğlu HH, Tarı E, Tüysüz O, Çakır Z, Ergintav S (2011). region of SW Turkey. Geophysical Journal International 195 Determining and modeling tectonic movements along the (3): 1455–1463. central part of the North Anatolian Fault (Turkey) using geodetic measurements. Journal of Geodynamics 51 (5): 339- Tiryakioğlu İ, Yiğit CÖ, Yavaşoğlu H, Saka MH, Alkan RM (2017). 343. The determination of interseismic, coseismic and postseismic deformations caused by the Gökçeada Samothraki earthquake Yıldırım C (2014). Relative tectonic activity assessment of the Tuz (2014, Mw: 6.9) based on GPS data. Journal of African Earth Gölü fault zone; Central Anatolia, Turkey. Tectonophysics 630: Sciences 133: 86–94. 183-192. Tiryakioglu İ, Gulal E, Solak HI, Ozkaymak C (2018a). Crustal Deformation Modelling by GNSS Measurements: Southwestern Anatolia, Turkey. In: Kallel A, Ksibi M, Ben Dhia H, Khélifi N (eds) Recent Advances in Environmental Science from the Euro-Mediterranean and Surrounding Regions. EMCEI 2017. Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation (IEREK Interdisciplinary Series for Sustainable Development). Springer, Cham doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-70548-4_547 33